Tour agency penalised for delayed flight

Joseph Pace

Feb 4th 2009, 18:31

@ M.Galea

I am not in this line of business, I am simply a consumer.

Can you give me one good reason why people like me should buy a tour from a travel agency as opposed to going directly at source and organising it themselves? Don't tell me that it's cheaper, it is not. Most computer literate people are perfectly capable of buying airline tickets, cruises, accomodation and tickets for all sorts of venues.

The reason why I would consider buying a package of services from a travel agency would be to have the services of professional and experienced people like yourself in case things do not turn out as planned. The travel agent sells the product as a package and is therefore responsible to deliver it. How to make a profit is your business, you wouldn't accept bad food at a restaurant becauses the manager whinges that they make little profit.

As Sharon Attard so kindly demonstrated, anyone who is able and can spare the time to take care of all eventualities does not require the travel agent's services. Thank you Ms Attard for taking the time to share your experiences.

M.Galea

Feb 4th 2009, 14:41

@ J.Scicluna.....I am a travel agent, even though you don't seem to believe it, and have been so for thirty years, so, with respect, Sir, I don't need you to preach to me about agency commissions. You seem to be so well informed......but you don't seem to know that certain airlines still give the travel agents a 4% commission. IATA does not regulate the amount of commission it pays out to the agent. The airline does. And to get back to the original argument in this case, I was only suggesting that Air Malta should support this agent simply because Mondial is so evidently not at fault here. With regards to your claim that agents used to give a discount to their clients, what's that to you? Isn't that what competition and fair trade are all about? We certainly cannot give any discounts now.

Paul Savona

Feb 4th 2009, 11:54

The outcome is correct.

The responsibility lies on the Tour Operator. When things go wrong they should have insurance to cover this. Or at the very least include insurance cover s a part of the package.

The airline will already be responsible as per EU regulations to make good when it has a delay. However this cannot be extended to responsibility for connections to third parties that the airline has nothing to do with. If it was a tour operated by an Airline, then yes, they would be responsible. But as it stands they were contracted to take the passengers from A to B only. Depending on the delay I am sure Air Malta compensated the passengers accordingly.

This is why people buy insurance. So that in the unlikely event that something like this happens they will at least be covered for their losses.

J.Scicluna

Feb 4th 2009, 10:20

@ M.Galea

"Especially when Air Malta has reduced agency commission to a laughable 1%."

If, as you claim, you are a Travel Agent then you should know that the Agent's Commission was reduced to the level of 1% by IATA internationally and not Air Malta or any other Carrier. Please do not disseminate wrong information. Moreover, I would draw your attention (and that of many other people) that when the Agency Commission was still at 9% (a loooong time ago) Agents used to GIVE AWAY part of their commission to passengers to win clients over from other Agencies. There were cases were some Agents used to give away up to 8% of their sales commission and then make it up on Insurance commissions etc.

Sharon Attard

Feb 3rd 2009, 12:13

(cont.) It is worthwhile to note that Air Malta did make many efforts to help us reach our destination in time - they re-routed us to Paris, from where we were meant to catch a train to Dover. It was our only hope of making it in time, however the connection time was unfortunately too tight, and we thus missed the train and flew straight to Germany. It was a very interesting day.

I can understand that many customers would not want to incur the cost of an extra night, but what I did not understand was why we were booked on the 10.40 (or so) flight to Gatwick when there was an earlier flight to Heathrow (7.15am) which would have ensured that we got to the boat on time (the cruise ship left Dover at 3pm).

You live, you learn. At the end of the day though, the customers put their trust in Mondial, and Mondial should have taken up the matter with Air Malta before things reached this stage. I am quite sure that they would have been entitled to the same compensation from Air Malta that we received.

Sharon Attard

Feb 3rd 2009, 11:45

I was one of the passengers inconvenienced by this flight who missed the first days of the same cruise as a result of the plane to Gatwick being delayed by 4 hours - however my trip was organised independently, and not through Mondial. Myself and my family immediately flew ahead to Germany (after unsuccessfully trying to reach London by other means) where we spent two days of our holiday, and then caught the cruise ship from there.

In our case, I believe in the end we were compensated by Air Malta for the flight, and part of our expenses for the extra two days in Germany. Mondial should have taken up the issue with Air Malta immediately to compensate their inconvenienced clients, rather than waiting for the outcome of this tribunal and allowing things to escalate to this stage. That would have amounted to good customer service. The cruise took place in September 2007, which left MORE than enough time for Mondial to take the action into their own hands with Air Malta. I am unsure as to whether this was actually attempted by Mondial, but the article gives the impression that it was not.

M.Galea

Feb 3rd 2009, 09:22

As a travel agent myself, I always recommend that a client travels one day prior to the sailing date of the cruise. However, many clients prefer not to incur the expense of an extra night. I really cannot understand by what criteria can the agent in this case be held responsible. Especially when Air Malta has reduced agency commission to a laughable 1%. I wonder how many businesses there are out there who work for a sheer 1%, and who ever so often have to pay up for the mishap of others.

Joseph Pace

Feb 3rd 2009, 09:01

@ Martin Zammit

A tour operator does not simply book flights on your behalf as you put it, they sell you a package which includes the flights amongst other things. They are therefore solely responsible to supply their product as promised to their customers at the time of sale. How they deal with their suppliers (the airline in this case) and whether they insure against any mishaps is part and parcel with operating their tours, hence the term operators. With your reasoning they wouldn't be responsible even if the ship didn't operate.

On one hand this case is so obvious that it should never reached the courts, on the other hand there is the issue is what constitutes a fair amount of compensation. If clients and companies make a genuine effort to be reasonable in such cases, agreements could be easily reached with less time and financial loss.

It is probably unintentional but writing in blocks is the equivalent of shouting your head off during a discussion, refrain from doing it as it is considered rude.

Ramon Casha

Feb 3rd 2009, 06:59

If you order 12 items from a shop and pay in advance and one of the items gets broken, the shop is still legally bound to deliver 12 items, even if the item was broken by the transport company. Mondial should have sued Air Malta instead of just brushing it off on the customers. Air Malta could have made arrangements for another aircraft to take over, or made use of its code sharing agreements with other airlines to take the passengers to their destination. It can, and should, have insurance coverage for such eventualities.

Charles J Buttigieg

Feb 2nd 2009, 23:10

@ Richard Magri.

Looks like you still don’t get it.

You simply sue for damages the company you contracted with.

Another example: A person buys a ticket to London and the flight gets delayed and suffers damages, he sues the airline. He gets to his hotel and the roof leaks, he sues the hotel mananagement. He goes to the theatre and he finds a different show than what he had bout ticket for, he sues the theatre. He goes for a meal and gets food poisoning, he sues the restaurant owner.

If the same person had bought a package from a tour operator which included all those services and the same mishaps had happened he would only sue the operator. The operator, who had subcontracted would need to sue the sub contractors individually. That is legal accountability.

Charles J Buttigieg

Feb 2nd 2009, 18:44

@ Charles Everybody is responsible for their actions. The question is who is responsible to whom. In this particular case Mondial may sue Air Malta however Air Malta may in this case get away with it as it could not control the situation due to a force majeure, inclement weather. Another example. If you purchase tiles and hire a tile layer the tile layer would only be responsible for the laying of the tiles and you, naturally can’t sue the tile supplier if the tiles start falling off. On the other hand if you buy the tiles including laying and the tile supplier sub-contracts with the tile layer then you would sue the supplier not the tile layer.

lgalea

Feb 2nd 2009, 18:18

charles I am all for passengers rights, but to hold the airline responsible for bad weather is stupidity and injustice at its best. Does the eu want the aircraft to take off and risk the passengers lives so that the company does not have to pay compensation? Pen pushers in brussels simply sit behind their comfortable air conditioned desk and not have to make decisions on whether the flight should take place or not.

Richard Magri

Feb 2nd 2009, 18:03

This was a scheduled Malta to Gatwick flight. The delay was due to a bird strike whilst the plane was in Bulgaria the night before. It still has to be seen whether an airline can be legally held responsible for such a delay. If not, the agency will have to fork out the refund from its own funds....which is obviously very unfair!

Michael Abele

Feb 2nd 2009, 17:59

This was the scheduled London Gatwick flight. The delay was caused by some birds hitting the engine of this aircraft in Bulgaria. Therefore the aircraft arrived late in Malta and the flight to Gatwick was delayed. A clear case of 'force majeur'. The court never stated why it was the fault of the travel agent, all the court said is: PAY. I always thought that someone must do something wrong to be found guilty .... this case proves otherwise.

Chris Fabri

Feb 2nd 2009, 17:29

It must have been a charter flight!

Charles J Buttigieg

Feb 2nd 2009, 17:28

If you are travelling on a flight,booked through a travel agent and the inflight catering gives you food poisoning , you do not sue the travel agent or the caterers, you sue the airline as the service provider. The Mondial case is different; Mondial was not acting as a travel agent or a tour agent,it was the tour operator who sub-contracted with Air Malta and the cruise line. There is a difference between dealing with an agent and an operator, the agent is the go between and its obligations are only such. The service provider is the Tour Operator which at this time was Mondial acting as operators not agents.

charles

Feb 2nd 2009, 17:24

To my knowledge as per European Law Airmalta should still had to be responsible for delay of flight due to weather. If one study well the European Passengers RIGHT, the airline delays due to weather are still liable to give DBC.

Andrew J Said

Feb 2nd 2009, 15:54

Air Malta should have been called into the case since the travel agency did their job and had no control over whether or not the flight was delayed.

From the point of view of Air Malta, the flight being delayed could not be their fault since it mostly depends on the weather and other conditions that can not be controlled.

In my opinion, if the reasons of the delay were because of the weather or other reasons that nobody can control, the clients should not have won the case. On the other hand, if the delay was because of a mistake or lack of attention from Air Malta, Air Malta should have been penalised. The tour operator is just a medium between the client and Air Malta, and should not be responsible for what happened.

Martin Zammit

Feb 2nd 2009, 15:47

I TOTALLY DISAGREE OF THIS OUTCOME. THE AGENT IS THERE TO BOOK YOU THE MOST CONVENIENT FLIGHTS FOR ONWARD PLEASURES. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED BY THE CLIENT TO SEND HIM A DAY PRIOR TO HIS DESTINATION JUST IN CASE THE AIRLINE DELAYS FOR ANY REASON. I THINK THAT IN THIS CASE THE INSURANCE SHOULD BE INVOLVED!!!!!!!

Chris Poulton

Feb 2nd 2009, 15:35

It is now up to Mondial travel to take action against Airmalta. All this is doing is increasing the tribunal's (and lawyers') income whilst wasting precious time.

D.Galea

Feb 2nd 2009, 15:24

@J.Borg

Actually I think the proceedings were correct as the first company to deal with the clients first hand was in fact the travel agency...BUT then now it will stand for the travel agency to call Airmalta in civil court case to pay her the due damages.

J.Borg

Feb 2nd 2009, 15:18

Why wasn't Air Mala called into the case? If the flight was a scheduled one and not chartered, then it is Air Malta's responsibility.

Mr.Elliot Van heest

Feb 2nd 2009, 14:44

Hear hear well done Malta, that's how things are done in most other modern European countries,why should the client loose out everytime, and its as you say up to the tour operator to accept responsibilities,its after all their job to organise and see that things are up to date and run smoothly and they inturn should take the matter up with the air line in question.
Jaap NL.